Share

The Western Australian Senate re-run has produced a set of symbols of contemporary political directions so perfect it seems like some political deity designed it. Scott Ludlam, Clive Palmer and Joe Bullock together offer a road map of contemporary Australian politics.

The big swing to Ludlam not merely reverses a run of outs for the Greens since Bob Brown’s departure (my colleague William Bowe has a more pragmatic take on that) but keeps Ludlam in the Senate after he suffered not a political near-death experience but actual defeat, however brief, last September. True, the re-run favoured minor parties who were able to communicate their message in an atmosphere untainted by wider election dynamics. And the Greens spent up big on advertising, reversing their error of last September, when they directed a huge amount of funding, inexplicably, to hanging on to Adam Bandt’s House of Representatives seat rather than shoring up what was always going to be a difficult WA campaign.

But to get a nearly 6.5% swing is also partly down to Ludlam himself, who has steadily carved out a niche as one of the very few of the 220-odd federal parliamentarians who understands digital and communications issues and their intersection with national security. That has made him, over the last six years, a respected and authentic voice for an entire online community whose response to much of what passes for national debate on issues like surveillance and censorship in Australia is facepalming.

One political opponent pleased with Ludlam’s return, despite its impact on Labor’s vote, is Victorian Labor MP Anthony Byrne. “Ludlam’s result in the WA Senate election proves that idealism, hope and belief in change is still alive in politics, and that is unequivocally a good thing,” he told Crikey.

Byrne is in a better position than most to judge Ludlam’s contribution, given he previously headed, and is now deputy chair of, the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which carefully sifted an array of national security-related telecommunications reforms in 2012 and 2013, and which declined to back mandatory data retention.

Ludlam also demonstrated his political smarts when he used an adjournment debate one night to launch a savage attack on Tony Abbott — delivered in his trademark calm, acerbic style — that he then put online and which promptly went viral, garnering over 800,000 views on YouTube. The speech prompted predictable counterattacks from News Corporation’s stable of Coalition supporters and the unfortunate Paul Sheehan at Fairfax (author of an attack on a former Ludlam staffer for which Fairfax was forced to apologise) but that was exactly the intended effect, directing still more attention to Ludlam in the run-up to the election.

Having been invited to vote against the carbon price and the mining tax by the government, WA voters swung hard to both the party advocating a carbon price and even more mining taxes and to Clive Palmer’s party, which opposes both. If Ludlam’s the good, Clive Palmer is the bad. The very bad. Palmer, by dint of massive advertising spending and his own political smarts, acquired at the feet of Joh Bjelke-Petersen, has now secured himself the balance of power in the Senate less than a year since creating his party. It’s a remarkable, and frightening, achievement.

“With Bullock at the top of the ticket, Labor has gone from 29% in 2010 to less than 22%.”

The traditional model of Australian politics is that interest groups — business and unions, mainly — seek to influence policy indirectly through the major political parties, which at least ostensibly are committed to serving the national interest instead of sectional ones. But Palmer disrupts that model, because he has simply bought his way directly to power. No wonder News Corp now despises him: Palmer makes Rupert Murdoch look like a quaint also-ran when it comes to influencing public policy. Palmer lays bare a key fact about our political system, that it is about protecting the interests of the powerful as much as, if not more than, protecting the interests of all Australians.

Moreover, Palmer has done this partly by portraying himself as an outsider. This is the most absurd falsehood. Palmer is the ultimate insider — a mining magnate and former luminary of Queensland’s National Party who entered politics himself only because the party he bankrolled, the Liberal National Party, wouldn’t take instruction from him.

Palmer’s argument is that he is the antidote to the economic failures of the major parties. This, too, is nonsense. Specific policy issues aside, Australians have been well served by the economic management of both sides of politics for the last 30 years, albeit with the significant failure of the early 1990s recession. Australians are much more wealthy as a consequence and we have avoided recession for 22 years, despite external threats like the global financial crisis and the Asian financial crisis — all thanks to Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, John Howard, Peter Costello, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan. The last two even avoided the traditional inflation explosion that used to end Aussie resources booms. There’s no reason why Abbott and Hockey shouldn’t continue that tradition, either.

The power of Palmer has taken Australia more clearly in the direction of a plutocracy, and it is unlikely other powerful figures will ignore his example.

As for the ugly, that refers not to the singleted, hint-of-nipple look on Saturday of Joe Bullock (the union leader with the fauxletarian credentials of Trinity Grammar, University of Sydney and Sydney University Liberal Club), nor even to his vile comments about his colleague Louise Pratt and her partner. Bullock’s social conservatism, while providing a rich vein of mockery for social media, isn’t that different to that of many people on both sides in the Senate that he will shortly grace with his presence, or much of the community he represents. Rather, the ugliness is the internal ALP process that delivered Bullock top spot on the ALP ticket in a deal between Bullock’s right-wing Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association and the Left’s United Voice, a deal that, impressively, not merely left Bullock’s fellow Shoppie Senator Mark Bishop as roadkill but looks likely to kill off Pratt’s prospects, so badly did Bullock undermine the party’s vote. With Bullock at the top of the ticket, Labor has gone from 29% in 2010 to less than 22%.

For those of us who used to argue that the ALP comes out, in net terms, ahead because of its links with unions — that for every Don Farrell or Craig Thomson there’s an Ed Husic, a Doug Cameron or even a Bill Shorten — Bullock is a killer example of what is wrong with Labor. And he’ll have six years on the red leather to keep demonstrating that.

18 thoughts on “The good, the bad and the ugly of the WA Senate re-run”

Bernard, you partly touch on the main issue which was that this was not a normal senate election where often unappealing candidates (but not necessarily potentially poor politicians) are invisible. Scott Ludlum used his profile as did Clive (blanketing his local puppet Wang). That left the Labor Party caught out with 2 candidates who where from either end of their electoral spectrum that mainstream voters found harder to engage with.
It does bring to the fore the problem Labor has in giving their number one ticket to someone so socially conservative that he would be at home on the right of the Liberal Party.

As usual, the results prove that Labor hasn’t a clue what it stands for any more; what’s its principles are or who it is trying to appeal to. Rudd’s selfishness trashed the Labor Brand and no one, even Gillard, had the guts to admit their mistakes and start afresh.

Their trouncing proves they’ve lost their base while the parachuting of Bullock proves they’re still beholding to the Unions. We are left with the dangerous situation of a blunt, neo-con Government trashing everything that doesn’t fit its extreme ideology unchecked by any strong, viable alternative story. Abbott has ample time to consolidate and put his own people everywhere that counts.

I suspect we are in for many years of extremist, nihilist, backward-looking Government in Australia driving us to become the pre-eminent pariah in the Asian area.

Peter Bayley, I thought that what Rudd did at the time of his election in 2007 was try to distance the elected parliamentary wing of the Party in general and his own picks for ministers and Cabinet in particular, from the union and faction groups in the Party. Of course later, the factions came back after him and got even (or worse), ruining whatever credit the ALP had in the public eye and burning Julia Gillard in the process. You think Rudd trashed the Labor ‘brand’ but I think it’s that very brand of union/faction/backroom operation that is bringing Labor down and will keep doing so until it is properly trashed and made ‘dead, buried and cremated’ like its Liberal Work Choices counterpart.

Noting the result of W.A. Senate election, I wonder when Labor will wake up to the fact that presenting themselves as Liberal Lite disenfranchises many progressive voters. Putting conservative, old men in the box seat does nothing for the younger voters, who are forced to align with the the media savvy Greens and finally in this rant people like Bullock will never understand that badmouthing your party and candidates is a massive turn off and has lost them votes. Yet he will sit in the Senate for six years, do bugger all that contributes to a better society and gets a fat pension. No wonder Australians are pissed off with pollies!

Why has no one asked the question: Bullock’s conviction is for assault, and as I understand it that carries a potential penalty of more than 12 months imprisonment. A conviction for an offence that carries the possibility of more than 12 months imprisonment bars one from being a member of parliament. Is not Mr Bullock’s election invalid?

@ JH = I thought about that too, but maybe the offence has to occur whilst the person is already a politician? However, if you are correct, then I hope someone in the ALP goes after Bullock with all guns blazing!
On the other hand – why is everyone getting their knickers in a knot over this Bullock sh+t? The LNP have their Corey Bernardi sh+t, and no one is predicting the end of the world as we know it because he is sitting in the Senate.
A bit of perspective here, please!

To give Palmer his due, I think he has tapped into a widespread feeling of disillusionment within the electorate – or perhaps not so much disillusionment as a weariness with negativity. For six long years of Labor we had Tony Abbott at every single opportunity promoting doom and gloom. The deficit was astronomical. We were about to be over-run by disease-ridden terrorists. All our foreign investors were going to desert us because of mining and carbon taxes. All our jobs were going to disappear … on and on and on, and all to the background of the endless backstabbing and bitchiness of the other side as well.

It’s scarcely been much better since the election. All we’ve seen is legislation overturned and initiatives undone. All we’ve heard is Joe Hockey’s grim prognostications warning us of the budget from Hell.

Then along comes Clive Palmer. I saw the ad. A jolly fat man willing to laugh and dance with the kids while eating cream pies. Someone who’s not afraid to be a bit of a dag and seen to be politically incorrect. Someone, at long last, who’s a bit of FUN!

Can you see Tony Abbott, or Joe Hockey, or Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard pulling that off? I can’t. Rudd tried with his selfies but that just came over as false and cringeworthy.

It will be interesting to see how Palmer develops his public image now he has the balance of power.

One political opponent pleased with Ludlam’s return, despite its impact on Labor’s vote, is Victorian Labor MP Anthony Byrne. “Ludlam’s result in the WA Senate election proves that idealism, hope and belief in change is still alive in politics, and that is unequivocally a good thing,” he told Crikey.

I have been a Labor voter through family tradition for my voting life, and I live in a blue ribbon Liberal stronghold.

I voted Green on Saturday: Labor’s policies on many social issues are just as distasteful as Liberal’s.

I met Scott Ludlam, I heard him speak: his passionate but calm off-the-cuff remarks reflected my thoughts about our refugee policies, about the environment, about the NDIS, about the mining and carbon taxes.

I looked at the policies of every other party and candidate too. So many people jumping on little bandwagons or else barking mad.

The Greens stood head and shoulder above every one else as the group that would really represent me.

I’m happy for you, Tin… Will you be pleased with the Green handiwork when they vote for rich women to be paid up to $75,000 to have their much more important (than poorer women) time off to have a baby? As a female, I don’t understand why some mothers/babies are worth more than others.
Then ther e is the small matter of the Greens vote to abolish the credit limit, so that Hockey can fiddle the books and make all his tripe look like Labor’s fault. Not to mention the fact that they voted down Rudd’s legislation on the first carbon price bill. The latter has now given the rAbbott carte blanch to get rid of the whole ‘carbon tax’. iIf they had supported the first bill, we would now have an entrenched ETS, which would be unassailable.
I hope your Green bast+rds are going to explain to my grandchildren why they can’t exist on this planet in 2050. They got what they wanted in the end – too little, too late!

I agree with you on the Greens not supporting the ETS, CML@16, but not your sheeting home all the blame to them for its failure. All the parties failed to distinguish themselves in that process: Abbott with his denialism; Rudd with his Machiavellian machinations; and the Greens with their sometimes excessive purity and political naiveté.

Assuming Louise Pratt is really popular with broad range of ALP voters. This is a big assumption as I assume Louise Pratt was a Lesbian and partnered a person who had a sex change. So assume Louise Pratt is really that much more popular than Joe Bullock, then shouldn’t all her support base gather round and rally her to victory, which I personally hope happens.

Maybe someone can explain why is this the case.

If it was the other way around & Joe was no. two on ticket, would outcome be any different except that undemocratically 2nd place on senate ticket would be a struggle no matter who held that position.

Here I think Bernard is unusually wrong in his logic. Both opposing each other from extreme policy positions created this outcome. Like thesis, antithesis & Synthesis; no middle ground & oops ; a big turnoff for voters.

Maybe I am an idiot but this is not all Joe’s fault. The extreme positions decimated Labours already tarnished HALO.

I mean strictly speaking as in “HALO EFFECT”. Which can be defined as tendency for voters to align themselves when answering questions as favourably or unfavourably a position, consistently across topic & time. No matter how subject verb object is put in questions voters answer consistently like as though they understood party & its shared beliefs , values & consciousness such that statistically a huge bias in favouring an answer to any manner of questions asif they intuitively believed in Labour’s mantra.

Labour has lost its overarching halo, which was already corrupted but now thanks to two extreme candidates totally adulterated. As if it ever existed in last few years. Substitute BRAND as another concept if you please. Of course I do not have access to demographics to substantiate this so it is all very speculative.